STATE OF MAHAversusNAMDEO PURBHAJI SARODE

2026:BHC-AUG:3445-DB


                                      1                Cri.Appeal No. 682-2003

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 682            OF 2003

                  The State of Maharashtra,
                  Through Police Station,
                  Kurunda, Dist. Parbhani.                    .. Appellant
                                                            (Ori. Complainant)
                        VERSUS

                  Namdeo S/o Purbhaji Sarode,
                  Age : 40 Years, Occ. Labour,
                  R/o. Korta, Tq. Basmath,
                  District Hingoli.                           ..Respondent
                                                            (Ori. Accused)
                                           …
                  A.P.P. for the Appellant-State : Mrs. Bharati B. Gunjal
                  Advocate for the Respondent : None
                                           ….

                                   CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                           ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

                                   DATED : 23/01/2026.
            JUDGMENT : (Per : Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :

            1.          The appellant, State has challenged the acquittal of

            present respondent – accused in Sessions Case No. 216 of 2001

            vide judgment and order dated 23/07/2003, from the offence

            under Sections 307, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the

            Indian Penal Code, at the hands of learned Ad-hoc Additional

            Sessions Judge, Parbhani (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the learned

            Trial Judge’’).
                         2               Cri.Appeal No. 682-2003

2.         According to the prosecution case, informant – Sanjay

Kashinath Sarode and the respondent accused are resident of

common locality i.e. Chondi-Amba, Taluka Basmat, District

Parbhani in the agricultural land.      On 16.07.2001, informant

Sanjay went to his agricultural land and asked the respondent and

his son Sumit as to why they plucked mangoes from his trees.

Thereafter, altercation started between them and son of respondent

gave blow of knife on the chest of Sanjay.       The respondent also

assaulted Sanjay on his head and back with the help of stick and

also mother of Sanjay by name Kalavati on her mouth, chest and

stomach. Neighbours namely Vinod, Kashinath, Prakash, Gyanoba

intervened and resolved the dispute. Sanjay was then admitted to

hospital, where his dying declaration Exh. 26 was recorded by

P.W.3 P.H.C. Dattatreya Duba and on the basis of it, crime was

registered against the respondent and his son under Sections 307

and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation,

the respondent was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences.



3.         The learned Trial Judge conducted the trial, but

acquitted the respondent/accused from the aforesaid charges. The

son of respondent was tried separately, being the juvenile offender.
                         3             Cri.Appeal No. 682-2003

4.         The learned A.P.P. vehemently argued that though their

was evidence of both the injured eye witnesses against the

respondent about his act of causing grievous hurt, but the learned

Trial Judge erroneously discarded the same.      However, she fairly

admitted that, role of respondent/accused was only in respect of

beating those eye witnesses with the help of stick and the stab

wound was caused by the juvenile offender.



5.    The learned counsel for the respondent remained absent.



6.   Since this is an appeal against acquittal, we deem it

appropriate to decide the same even in absence of the respondent,

as the burden is upon prosecution to establish the guilt of

respondent beyond reasonable doubt.



7.   Heard learned A.P.P. and also perused the impugned

judgment along with the paper book and also record and

proceedings of the original case.



8.   Admittedly, the stab wound was caused by juvenile offender,

who is not before this Court. Therefore, only role of respondent/

accused needs to be taken into consideration to ascertain whether
                         4                Cri.Appeal No. 682-2003

he is guilty for causing grievous hurt. On perusal of the impugned

judgment, it appears that the learned Trial Judge has mainly

acquitted the respondent on the grounds that the spot and time of

the offence were not clearly established, there were major

contradictions and inconsistencies found in the testimonies of two

injured eye witness namely P.W.1 Sanjay and P.W.2 Kalavati, in

respect of sequence of events and the specific assault. No common

intention was found between respondent and his son in attempting

to commit murder of the informant- Sanjay. The recovery of stick

at the instance of respondent was not supported by independent

panch witness and the injured witnesses were interested witnesses.



9.   On this back ground, if the entire material on record

including the evidence is perused, then it appears that the dying

declaration Exhibit-26 appears vague and silent on the specific

time of the offence and precise location of the incident. So also, the

spot panchnama Exhibit-30 also does not provide a clear picture of

the scene of the offence. So far as testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2,

who are the injured eye witnesses, are concerned, it reveals that

they had gone to the house of the accused to confront him, which

is directly contrary to the prosecution claim that the incident took

place in the land of the complainant.
                         5                Cri.Appeal No. 682-2003

10.        Further, there was no evidence of               mens-rea and

premeditated intention to kill. The incident appears to be caused

due to sudden quarrel over a trivial issue of plucking mangoes.

Further, there was no common intention apparent from the act of

this respondent, since the act of stabbing, from the juvenile son of

the respondent, appeared independent. Apart from that, there are

contradictions, improvements in the evidence of P.W.1 Sanjay and

P.W.2 Kalavati on material aspects. The sequence who went to the

spot first, is not properly established. Further, P.W.2 Kalavati did

not support the claim that the respondent had assaulted Sanjay on

the head with stick.     There are inconsistencies in duration of

incident and location of neighbouring houses. It was found that

P.W.2 Kalavati contradicted her own previous police statement and

improved her version before the Court. Further, it has also come

on record that her evidence could be treated as that of interested

witness, since it has come on record that the respondent had

previously stood as witness against Kalavati in another litigation.



11.        Further, the medical and scientific evidence on record

also does not support the case of the prosecution, since P.W.2

Kalavati had not stated that respondent assaulted Sanjay with stick

on his head. Therefore, though injury in the form of contusion was
                          6               Cri.Appeal No. 682-2003

found on the head of Sanjay, but there was no role of present

respondent as per Kalavati.        Further, it is claimed by the

prosecution that Namdeo bet Kalavati on her mouth, chest and

stomach with the help of stick, but surprisingly in the M.L.C of

Kalavati, no injuries were found on the aforesaid parts of her body.

Therefore, there is inconsistency between the ocular evidence as

well as medical evidence.     Further, it is clearly evident that the

recovery of stick at the instance of Namdeo also appears doubtful,

in absence of supporting evidence of panch witnesses.               It is

extremely important to note that despite there being presence of

neighbours namely Vinod, Kashinath, Prakash and Dnyanoba on

the spot, none of them was examined as an independent witness.

Therefore, all these facts have definitely rendered the case of the

prosecution as a doubtful one.



12.     In view of the same, we concur with the reasoning of learned

Sessions Judge by taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts.

As such, no interference is required in the appeal and the same

stands dismissed.



( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)         ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. )

Ysk/-